Exploring the impact of note taking methods on cognitive function among university students
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Taking notes during lectures plays a vital role in enhancing learning outcomes. With technological advancements, digital note-taking has gained popularity among university students in recent years due to its convenience, ease of storage, sharing, and searching. Different versions of digital note-taking have been introduced, including the use of styluses on tablets, which offer a blend of traditional handwriting and digital advantages. However, the use of digital devices may introduce distractions, such as access to social media, potentially disrupting focus and impacting learning effectiveness. Therefore, their impact on learning and cognition remains a topic of ongoing exploration. This study aimed to investigate the differences in cognitive functions between university students practicing either longhand or styluses digital note-taking methods in the United Arab Emirates. METHODS: One hundred students participated in this cross-sectional study. Sociodemographic information, including age, sex, nationality, and study year were obtained. Participants reported the note-taking method they use (longhand vs. digital note-taking with styluses). A battery of cognitive tests was used in this study to assess different cognitive functions, including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT), the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test-Revised (BVMT-R), and the Stroop Color and word test. The Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess differences in different cognitive domains between participants following longhand and styluses digital note-taking. RESULTS: Students that used longhand note-taking demonstrated significantly higher overall cognitive scores (MoCA, p = 0.005), along with superior information processing speed, working memory (SDMT, p = 0.045), and better visual memory (BVMT-R, p = 0.01), compared to those who used styluses digital note-taking. However, students using styluses digital note-taking exhibited better inhibitory cognitive control (Stroop test, p = 0.020). CONCLUSIONS: Although using styluses offers a hybrid experience by combining the tactile benefits of handwriting with the digital advantages of electronic devices, students who employed longhand note-taking demonstrated significantly higher cognitive scores across several domains compared to their peers using stylus-based digital methods. However, while these differences were statistically significant, the effect size was small. Longitudinal cohort studies are needed to further examine the predictive, mediating, and confounding factors related to note-taking methods and cognitive abilities in students.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle